Piers Morgan: Hey, let’s amend the Bible

posted at 9:01 am on December 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

And not just the Bible, but Piers Morgan wants to amend the Constitution, too. It’s a darn good thing that the CNN host needed work badly enough to emigrate to a place that he finds so disagreeable.  What did we ever do without him?

I have no issue with the concept of amending the Constitution — and neither did the founders, who accepted that it might prove flawed for later use.  That’s why they included the mechanisms for amending the foundational document of American law within it, mechanisms that have been used 17 times since the original passage of the Constitution.  We have even had one amendment repeal another (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th).  If Morgan wants to press for an amendment repealing the Second Amendment in whole or in part, he just needs to convince two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it, and then get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Have fun storming the castle!

His insistence on amending the Bible amuses more than it shocks, because it’s impossible to take Morgan seriously.  He’s needling Rick Warren, nothing more, and attempting to provoke him into a heated exchange. Warren is simply smarter than Morgan, and takes a pass.

If Morgan was serious, then it’s still less offensive than humorous, but the joke is on Morgan.  If you believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God, then you know that it’s absurd to suggest that it be “amended” based on the latest human fashion, which is what Warren explains.  God is, after all, unchangeable — or He wouldn’t be God at all. It would be equally absurd to think that anyone would base their faith on the amended product, a Gospel According To Piers, if you will, unless people decided that Piers is either God Himself or a new prophet, in which case he’d probably have a better gig.

And if you don’t think that the Bible is the unerring word of God … why would you care what’s in it at all?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11

I like Timin’s claim, several hundred posts back, that he has an inalienable right to belong to a country that has never existed.

It practically rivals the unicorn-and-skittles level of progressives and socialists.

If human behavior is all naturalistic force, whether progressive collectivism or brain-impaired religious group-think, where does the inalienable right to beat the odds come from?

Axeman on December 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Earlier in this thread someone linked to a website that answered your objection.

You need a website to “answer” this? It’s a rather simple story: 42 kids call a guy “baldie” Guy happens to be in good with God so he calls in a favor. God sicks a couple “she-bears” on them. Kids get dealt with in gruesome fashion.

The end.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Mazil9
Bazil9

no relation

bazil9 on December 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The end.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I guess you can lead a horse to water; a jackass not so much.

davidk on December 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

This is like the infamous lourdes steak thread..
Mazer=lourdes.

bazil9 on December 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

No, Piers’ suggestion is very much more insidious, to the extent that it has any effect whatsoever. Why don’t we change what the Bible says, so that people who are compelled by obedience to it must conform to our set of values…

Axeman on December 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Forget Piers Morgan for a moment. You know, I know a lot of people who made this same critique of Rick Warren when his Purpose Driven Life was a phenomenon in the Evangelical Church. They practically accused him of amending the Bible with his book.

HeIsSailing on December 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

That ain’t my idea of “love”. “Deranged” maybe.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

.
It wasn’t God’s idea of love, either.

Old Testament personalities were still “spiritually dead” (due to Adam’s sin). Elisha let the taunts get to him, and he abused (as far as I’m concerned) the power entrusted to him.

But there are still other examples you could use. How many cities did Israel lay waste to during the Exodus? When ever they destroyed a city, they killed everything. Women, children, babies; everything. They stepped on as many bugs as they could, when they laid waste to a city.
Absolute “scorched earth”.

But it was at the directing of God that they did this. Does that disqualify God as a being a God of love?

God commanded circumcision (a painful procedure) for the Jews.

What does that make him?

I could keep going, but I’ll stop here.

listens2glenn on December 28, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Does that disqualify God as a being a God of love?

Uh…by any rational definition of the word, yeah.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 9:29 PM

They are so cute when they say “rational”

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM

They are so cute when they say “rational”

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I know how much you Christians cringe at the word.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Mazil9
Bazil9

no relation

bazil9 on December 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM

You can say that again! b9>m9

:)

Anti-Control on December 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I know how much you Christians cringe at the word.

mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 9:58 PM

It is a damnable shame that you people are so ignorant and full of rage to even voice such a concern.

No truth? All a matter of taste? Time + Chance + matter?

Yep, an infinite number of angels from which to fall and only one at which to stand upright.

Damnable shame for you people.

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Teh Noob haz said n hiz <3 theys ain't no God.

Sucks to be teh noob.

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM

What shocks me is that there are actually 888 comments before mine that actually believe this subject OR Piers Morgan has ANY merit. If you believe, Morgans comments aren’t worthy of noting, and if you listen to Morgan at all, I question your sanity.

I wonder, just how gullible are you HA types anyhow?

DevilsPrinciple on December 28, 2012 at 11:38 PM

DevilsPrinciple on December 28, 2012 at 11:38 PM

.
We’re only commenting on it, because Ed Morrisey posted the story.

Are saying he’s wrong, for doing it ?
.
Oh, and also because I just love these “atheism vs Christianity” threads.

They’re fun.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM

It is a damnable shame that you people are so ignorant and full of rage to even voice such a concern.

No truth? All a matter of taste? Time + Chance + matter?

Yep, an infinite number of angels from which to fall and only one at which to stand upright.

Damnable shame for you people.

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Christians are willfully ignorant regarding their entire belief system, hence the need for “faith”.

mazer9 on December 29, 2012 at 8:08 AM

You guys are taking this awfully personally. I didn’t stop believing in god because “he didn’t answer my prayers”. I stopped believing in god because the belief is irrational. I was given my religion by my parents. I dismissed it when I reached an age to know better. Attack me all you want but it doesn’t get you any closer to proving there is any validity to your belief in fairy tales. If it makes you feel more secure about why you choose to believe in nonsense perhaps it serves a purpose.

mazer9 on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Sheesh…why on earth would anyone take what you say personally? It isn’t like you call them irrational or too stupid to ‘know better’. Oh, wait…

You are an obnoxious bigot towards those of us who have Faith. You think you are so superior, yet I would wager that I have far more evidence to support my belief in God’s existence than you have in your belief in His non-existence. From what I can tell, your ‘evidence’ boils down to “I don’t like His rules or the way He runs His creation so I refuse to believe in Him.” Your choice, but you really shouldn’t be accusing others of irrationality when there is more evidence for their belief.

Why is it irrational to look at this and conclude that they are pieces of evidence for Christ and His resurrection? How do you explain them? Are you like most atheists when confronted with them and say they prove nothing (without even reading it) because you don’t/won’t believe in God? That isn’t an answer. How do you explain them?

When I compare the evidence those scientists compiled with that found in this, I would argue that it is far more irrational to dismiss it out of hand than to look at it, in connection with more recent studies that scientists have done which have concluded that the Shroud could not have been made with any technology possessed in the middle ages, and conclude that all three are real and hard evidence in support of the testimony of the Apostles found in Scripture. The Sudarium is very likely the cloth found lying off to the side in Christ’s tomb (John 20:6-7) and likely the napkin Peter placed on his head when he spoke. It has been documented, protected and venerated for centuries, long before the carbon dating of the Shroud, yet all scientific evidence links the two pieces of cloth to the same man, calling the erroneous dating of the Shroud to the middle ages into serious question, along with other problems in the dating that were admitted by the person who performed the tests.

The blood type, on both cloths and then in the Eucharistic Miracle all being type AB. Quite a coincidence, don’t you think? It isn’t like forgers could plant it to confuse, when we have only been able to type blood in the last century, hundreds and hundreds of years after the documented history of all three of these artifacts/substances. I don’t find it particularly rational to write the blood type off as a coincidence, particularly when combined with the other dramatic questions of the Shroud’s creation.

Jesus is real. He died for us, just as had been prophesied; shed His precious type AB blood for us, you included. He rose from the dead, causing the Shroud of Turin’s image to be imprinted, and He appeared to the Apostles, causing them to face violent martyrdom rather than deny Him. Why would they do that? More evidence…

Then there is the archaeological evidence

I’m sorry, there is just far too much evidence. Too often people think God expects us to believe with blind faith, but Jesus gave His Apostles evidence; He performed miracles for the people, and He did not abandon Thomas to doubt and unbelief, even if He did say ‘Blessed are they who have not seen and believe.” He has always presented evidence for His claims. Why would He not have left the Shroud, Sudarium, Eucharistic Miracles, etc…?

There is evidence… What do you make of it? Show me your evidence for your faith that He does not exist.

Frankly, the results of abandoning God’s laws which we see coming at us in our country and the world would be enough evidence, (We are Romans 1) but there is just so much more. Ignore it if you want, but you do so at your own peril. Seems a bit irrational to me.

pannw on December 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM

You are an obnoxious bigot towards those of us who have Faith. You think you are so superior, yet I would wager that I have far more evidence to support my belief in God’s existence than you have in your belief in His non-existence.

The burden isn’t on me to prove a negative. Do I have to “prove” that Unicorns DON’T exist or any infinite number of imaginary or invisible things? It is a pointless and dumb exercise. On the other hand, if you are going to make fantastical claims about an invisible deity who was born of “virgin birth” and then was killed and resurrected and will come back any day now, you should be ready to back it up with STRONG EVIDENCE.

In fact the more fantastical the claim, the more evidence you should have for it. Otherwise you would be a fool to believe it. And as far as me being “obnoxious”, I am not the one telling you that you will be punished for your beliefs, just that they are silly and unfounded. Hence the necessary requirement for the suspension of disbelief. I believe you Christians call that “faith”.

mazer9 on December 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

You are an obnoxious bigot towards those of us who have Faith. You think you are so superior, yet I would wager that I have far more evidence to support my belief in God’s existence than you have in your belief in His non-existence.

The burden isn’t on me to prove a negative. Do I have to “prove” that Unicorns DON’T exist or any infinite number of imaginary or invisible things? It is a pointless and dumb exercise. On the other hand, if you are going to make fantastical claims about an invisible deity who was born of “virgin birth” and then was killed and resurrected and will come back any day now, you should be ready to back it up with STRONG EVIDENCE.

In fact the more fantastical the claim, the more evidence you should have for it. Otherwise you would be a fool to believe it. And as far as me being “obnoxious”, I am not the one telling you that you will be punished for your beliefs, just that they are silly and unfounded. Hence the strong need for faith. How could you believe it otherwise?

mazer9 on December 29, 2012 at 7:22 PM

tom daschle concerned on December 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM

.
Christians are willfully ignorant regarding their entire belief system, hence the need for “faith”.

mazer9 on December 29, 2012 at 8:08 AM

.
The Almighty Heavenly Father does everything by faith, motivated by love.

Are you saying he’s “willfully ignorant?”

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

The burden isn’t on me to prove a negative. Do I have to “prove” that Unicorns DON’T exist or any infinite number of imaginary or invisible things? It is a pointless and dumb exercise. On the other hand, if you are going to make fantastical claims about an invisible deity who was born of “virgin birth” and then was killed and resurrected and will come back any day now, you should be ready to back it up with STRONG EVIDENCE.

mazer9 on December 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

.
You should stop being defiant.
.

In fact the more fantastical the claim, the more evidence you should have for it. Otherwise you would be a fool to believe it. And as far as me being “obnoxious”, I am not the one telling you that you will be punished for your beliefs, just that they are silly and unfounded. Hence the necessary requirement for the suspension of disbelief. I believe you Christians call that “faith”.

mazer9 on December 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

.
No, that’s not what faith is.

There’s no use in me trying to explain it to someone predisposed to defiance (you know, “casting pearls” and all that) … : (

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 8:27 PM

mazer9 on December 29, 2012 at 7:22 PM

No comment on the evidence I provided, eh? :) No explanations, just dismissed out of hand, as expected. Jesus was not ‘invisible’, but keep denying Him, by all means. Free will and all that.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Sadly there have always been and always will be those He created who declare “I will not serve!”

pannw on December 29, 2012 at 10:58 PM

No, that’s not what faith is.

There’s no use in me trying to explain it to someone predisposed to defiance (you know, “casting pearls” and all that) … : (

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 8:27 PM

People like mazer9 are not interested in your personal experiences, and believe they understand them better than you even though they cannot prove they do – this doesn’t stop them from grinding their axes though, does it?

That is why I have emphasized in this thread the wisdom of not taking such pseudo-scientific hypocrites seriously – they believe their opinions are superior to yours in a rude manner, showing that they are arrogant, unserious, and a waste of time.

It is obvious that proselytizing antitheists like mazer9 are insecure and discontented – any defensive denials by them only reaffirm the assertion.

Anti-Control on December 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM

What I wanted to articulate is that when someone tells a Christian they no longer believe in God, they immediately assume that the person either is mad at God for “not answering their prayers” or that the person is “rebelling” against him.mazer9 on December 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

That’s not what you said. It seems that you are trying to backtrack and lie about saying what you did say.
All you’ve managed to do here is expose yourself as a drama queen and an attention-whore.
And a nasty little boy who feels safe in attacking something you can’t understand from a point of safety.
You’re just a run of the mill anti-theist with no redeeming qualities.

Solaratov on December 30, 2012 at 10:16 AM

In fact the more fantastical the claim, the more evidence you should have for it.

That’s got to be one of the more moronic cliche’s used by atheist regurgitaters. If you have this mountain of evidence in development, how “fantastic” can something be?

It’s base ignorant because it doesn’t even understand that “evident” and “fantasy” are shaded words, but also nearly opposites . e=outer, vid=to see as opposed to fantasy which comes from phainesthai, “to appear, to dream”.

I mean that you repeat this kind of foolishness–as well as the One Less God foolishness, is typical of regurgitation element in atheism rank-and-file.

“You want to prove to me something I exclude as the basis of my conversation? Square a circle.”

Axeman on December 30, 2012 at 2:46 PM

That’s got to be one of the more moronic cliche’s used by atheist regurgitaters. If you have this mountain of evidence in development, how “fantastic” can something be?

It’s base ignorant because it doesn’t even understand that “evident” and “fantasy” are shaded words, but also nearly opposites . e=outer, vid=to see as opposed to fantasy which comes from phainesthai, “to appear, to dream”.

I mean that you repeat this kind of foolishness–as well as the One Less God foolishness, is typical of regurgitation element in atheism rank-and-file.

“You want to prove to me something I exclude as the basis of my conversation? Square a circle.”

Yeah virgin births, walking dead, and talking serpents is totally normal. Happens all the time.

Good grief.

mazer9 on December 30, 2012 at 7:49 PM

People like mazer9 are not interested in your personal experiences, and believe they understand them better than you even though they cannot prove they do – this doesn’t stop them from grinding their axes though, does it?

That is why I have emphasized in this thread the wisdom of not taking such pseudo-scientific hypocrites seriously – they believe their opinions are superior to yours in a rude manner, showing that they are arrogant, unserious, and a waste of time.

It is obvious that proselytizing antitheists like mazer9 are insecure and discontented – any defensive denials by them only reaffirm the assertion.

People like you aren’t interested in the truth. You rather believe in the voices in your head because you are afraid of the fact that you will die, so you take comfort in fairy tales. “Personal experiences” are just that: personal. If god exists his existence would be evident to all. Not just a fortunate few who can conjure ghosts.

mazer9 on December 30, 2012 at 7:54 PM

If god exists his existence would be evident to all. Not just a fortunate few who can conjure ghosts.

mazer9 on December 30, 2012 at 7:54 PM

.
It is “self evident” to all.

That includes you.

listens2glenn on December 30, 2012 at 8:08 PM

People like you aren’t interested in the truth.

This has already been said this about you as you unknowingly confuse your assertions with reality, to which you come back with a, ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ argument, and are too stupid to understand why I say that no one should take you seriously, as you chase your own tail like a dumb dog.

You are a predictable, uninteresting, projecting fool. So, why don’t you try proving that I’m wrong about that? lol

You rather believe in the voices in your head because you are afraid of the fact that you will die, so you take comfort in fairy tales. “Personal experiences” are just that: personal. If god exists his existence would be evident to all. Not just a fortunate few who can conjure ghosts.

mazer9 on December 30, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Do you know what “logical fallacies” are? What leads you to believe you are skilled enough to be able to spot them in your own statements? Show us a sign you are intelligent enough to provide evidence of your “talent” in this area.

I see that you are a poor debater. You know why I say that? You obviously don’t examine your premises before you make them – you don’t bother concerning yourself with how unprovable they are before you accept them at face value. For instance, how do you know I am the least bit afraid of death? What kind of moron would say with a straight face that personal experiences are only personal and never objectively real – would you care to continue down this route, and say that eyewitness testimony is never accurate?

You are not a scientific person, no more than AGW diehards are, yet you believe this about yourself despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary – as I’ve already said, you are an unserious, babbling person with your own subjective axe to grind, and thus you waste everyone‘s time, including your own.

Anti-Control on December 31, 2012 at 1:12 AM

you are an unserious, babbling person with your own subjective axe to grind, and thus you waste everyone‘s time, including your own.

I’m “unserious” and “unscientific”, yet you are the one who believes in talking serpents, virgin births, and the, walking dead.

Talk about irony.

mazer9 on December 31, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I’m “unserious” and “unscientific”, yet you are the one who believes in talking serpents, virgin births, and the, walking dead.

Talk about irony.

mazer9 on December 31, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Yes, that’s right, you are unserious and scientific!

I said to you, “You are a predictable, uninteresting, projecting fool. So, why don’t you try proving that I’m wrong about that? lol”, and “Do you know what “logical fallacies” are? What leads you to believe you are skilled enough to be able to spot them in your own statements? Show us a sign you are intelligent enough to provide evidence of your “talent” in this area.”

You were given the opportunity to prove that I was wrong about you – of course, you failed, miserably, and offered no sign that you are intelligently introspective. All you did was show that you only know how to talk at people, not with them, proving what a poor communicator you are, which is why I called you a babbler.

You continue to make me laugh with your denial, stupidity and incompetence – as I’ve already given you more attention than you deserve, that is all I have left to say to you! Bye now! :D

Anti-Control on December 31, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Yes, that’s right, you are unserious and unscientific!

-fixed

Anti-Control on December 31, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Hard to have a “scientific” conversation with people who believe in non-scientific nonsense. Star Wars is more feasible as a religious work than the bible is.

Show me a talking serpent, “Satan”, “Jesus”, or an “angel” and perhaps, I’ll reconsider my stance…

Until then it’s just wishful thinking on your part.

mazer9 on December 31, 2012 at 9:37 AM

mazer9 on December 31, 2012 at 9:37 AM

You have just spent days arguing against Someone whom you do not believe exists.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

kingsjester on December 31, 2012 at 10:51 AM

You have just spent days arguing against Someone whom you do not believe exists.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

kingsjester on December 31, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Yep. What an attention-starved, oblivious creature mazer9 is!

mazer9 suffers from a God complex, has an unhealthy obsession with religion, is mentally ill to the point of being incapable of intelligent discussion, and has been reduced to speaking to itself because it is so boring.

Have a good day, kj. :)

Anti-Control on December 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Anti-Control on December 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM

And, you as well! :)

kingsjester on December 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Yep. What an attention-starved, oblivious creature mazer9 is!

mazer9 suffers from a God complex, has an unhealthy obsession with religion, is mentally ill to the point of being incapable of intelligent discussion, and has been reduced to speaking to itself because it is so boring.

Ironically enough I think we would say that people who believe in virgin births, talking serpents, and the walking dead are “mentally ill”.

mazer9 on December 31, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Piers Morgan: A traitor to his own country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461904/Mirror-editor-sacked-over-fake-photos-of-torture.html

Why did America even waste one ounce of welcome on this fool.

OldSarg on December 31, 2012 at 6:39 PM

mazer9 on December 31, 2012 at 9:37 AM

.
Jesus will show himself to you, but by then it will be too late for you to decide He’s “real”.

listens2glenn on December 31, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Ironically enough I think we would say that people who believe in virgin births, talking serpents, and the walking dead are “mentally ill”.

mazer9 on December 31, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Let’s assume you’re right and this is the sum total of Christianity.

Those beliefs affect no one.

Whereas the leftist religion believes that humanity is the source of bad weather and massive government (ironically made of men) is required to solve it, that a man should not be the principle benefactor of his own labor, that children made of human parents in a human womb is not human, and that there is no objective difference between the relationships of men and men, men and women, and women and women respectively.

Given a choice between the two of them, I’ll take the person who thinks a demon in serpent form could talk over the person who thinks pregnant human women aren’t carrying human babies. The former is internally consistent, the latter is objectively errant and impossibly stupid.

BKennedy on January 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM

BKennedy on January 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM

.
Sir, you’re obviously a right-wing evangelical extremist (like myself), and as such, our opinions are “invalidated”.

listens2glenn on January 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Let’s assume you’re right and this is the sum total of Christianity.

Those beliefs affect no one.

Whereas the leftist religion believes that humanity is the source of bad weather and massive government (ironically made of men) is required to solve it, that a man should not be the principle benefactor of his own labor, that children made of human parents in a human womb is not human, and that there is no objective difference between the relationships of men and men, men and women, and women and women respectively.

Given a choice between the two of them, I’ll take the person who thinks a demon in serpent form could talk over the person who thinks pregnant human women aren’t carrying human babies. The former is internally consistent, the latter is objectively errant and impossibly stupid.

You do realize you don’t have to choose either one. Right?

mazer9 on January 1, 2013 at 2:59 PM

BKennedy on January 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM

.
Sir, you’re obviously a right-wing evangelical extremist (like myself), and as such, our opinions are “invalidated”.

listens2glenn on January 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I said nothing about politics. Outside of not believing in fairy tales, no one would mistake me for a liberal.

mazer9 on January 1, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Given a choice between the two of them, I’ll take the person who thinks a demon in serpent form could talk over the person who thinks pregnant human women aren’t carrying human babies. The former is internally consistent, the latter is objectively errant and impossibly stupid.

BKennedy on January 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I’m glad to see you at least can tell the difference between a consistent and non-destructive belief system and one that is as consistent as a bowl of Jell-O and is like sulfuric acid on the pillars of civilized society.

Think what you will about Christian beliefs; but know that they do not inevitably result legalized theft, blatant doublespeak, and DEATH. Liberalism does.

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM

I said nothing about politics. Outside of not believing in fairy tales, no one would mistake me for a liberal.

mazer9 on January 1, 2013 at 3:02 PM

My problem with your posts is mostly that you are choosing to focus anger and hatred on what you think are the illogical and stupid things Christians believe without acknowledging the legion and useful things that are also inspired by that religious outlook and philosophy.

It is highly convenient to think you can separate a religion that holds there is a physical, supernatural evil from its attached precepts that the existence of such requires physical, supernatural goodness towards fellow human beings.

You probably can – but you sound like an ignorant child when you, in bad faith, diminish Christianity to being about virgin births and talking serpents.

BKennedy on January 1, 2013 at 11:42 PM

You probably can – but you sound like an ignorant child when you, in bad faith, diminish Christianity to being about virgin births and talking serpents.

“Bad faith”? Do you not believe such things? It’s ridiculous I know. I can believe in “goodwill towards men” without believing any of the tales of the bible.

mazer9 on January 2, 2013 at 1:06 AM

“Bad faith”? Do you not believe such things? It’s ridiculous I know. I can believe in “goodwill towards men” without believing any of the tales of the bible.

mazer9 on January 2, 2013 at 1:06 AM

You’re a heckler then, plain and simple.

It’s easy to criticize the beliefs of others, all we know about you so far is that you boil Christianity down to solely its mystical elements without giving any pause to how these inform its philosophical ones.

You are a coward who chooses to attack what even religious adherents describe as mysteries in lieu of explaining your own belief system for the critical review of others.

I’m quite certain you believe in more than a few absurd tales yourself, but no, lets talk about your beefs with well-established, infinitely discussed Christian mysticism instead. Surely your sarcastic detraction will add something new to a practice rehashed over two millenia.

BKennedy on January 2, 2013 at 1:31 AM

You’re a heckler then, plain and simple.

It’s easy to criticize the beliefs of others, all we know about you so far is that you boil Christianity down to solely its mystical elements without giving any pause to how these inform its philosophical ones.

You are a coward who chooses to attack what even religious adherents describe as mysteries in lieu of explaining your own belief system for the critical review of others.

I’m quite certain you believe in more than a few absurd tales yourself, but no, lets talk about your beefs with well-established, infinitely discussed Christian mysticism instead. Surely your sarcastic detraction will add something new to a practice rehashed over two millenia.

BKennedy on January 2, 2013 at 1:31 AM

Good post. mazer9 claims to be a non-leftist, but you cannot tell that by the way it converses.

I have friends who are atheists, agnostics, of different religions, Christian denominations, and political leanings than me – what we have in common in respect for each other whether or not we agree. It is blatantly apparent that mazer9 does not understand this concept, which is why I find mazer9 to be self-important, boring, and too stupid to take seriously.

I could never be friends with such people, much less engage them for long in discussions about our opinions/beliefs. Can you remember running into these arrogant schmucks, who have painfully underdeveloped social skills, at parties, conventions, or other social gatherings? No one wants to interact them! :)

Anti-Control on January 2, 2013 at 4:35 AM

Good post. mazer9 claims to be a non-leftist, but you cannot tell that by the way it converses.

I have friends who are atheists, agnostics, of different religions, Christian denominations, and political leanings than me – what we have in common in respect for each other whether or not we agree. It is blatantly apparent that mazer9 does not understand this concept, which is why I find mazer9 to be self-important, boring, and too stupid to take seriously.

I could never be friends with such people, much less engage them for long in discussions about our opinions/beliefs. Can you remember running into these arrogant schmucks, who have painfully underdeveloped social skills, at parties, conventions, or other social gatherings? No one wants to interact them! :)

Anti-Control on January 2, 2013 at 4:35 AM

What’s more “arrogant” than thinking that people who don’t share your beliefs are going to burn in hell? Isn’t that precisely why you consider yourselves “saved”?

You can’t make this stuff up…

mazer9 on January 2, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Ed, you buried the lead!

Piers Morgan ends by actually saying debate should always be respectful, and that “the moment it becomes dis-courteous and rude, you never achieve anything.” Seriously, has this guy never seen a mirror before?

netster007x on January 31, 2013 at 2:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11